SEM VI Law of Evidence – Unit II Class Notes
Relevancy and Admissibility of Confessions
- Confessions:
- Definition: A confession is an acknowledgment of guilt by an accused person, usually concerning a crime they are charged with.
- Relevance: Confessions are highly relevant to proving guilt. However, their admissibility is subject to specific legal standards.
- Admissibility:
- General Rule: Confessions made to police officers are generally inadmissible unless they are made voluntarily.
- Voluntariness: For a confession to be admissible, it must be made voluntarily, without coercion, threat, or promise of leniency.
Examples:
- Admissible Confession: A confession made voluntarily during an interrogation.
- Inadmissible Confession: A confession extracted through torture or undue pressure.
Admissibility of Information Received from an Accused Person in Custody
- Information from Custody:
- Definition: Information provided by an accused while in police custody.
- Admissibility: Such information is generally admissible if it leads to the discovery of evidence.
- Requirements:
- Voluntariness: The information must be voluntarily provided.
- Discovery of Evidence: The information must lead to the discovery of evidence or recovery of stolen property.
Examples:
- Admissible Information: Information about the location of stolen goods leading to their recovery.
- Inadmissible Information: Information obtained through coercion or threats.
Confession of Co-Accused (Sections 24 to 30)
- Section 24: Confessions made under threat or promise are inadmissible.
- Section 25: Confessions made to police officers are inadmissible.
- Section 26: Confessions made in police custody, unless to a magistrate, are inadmissible.
- Section 27: Confessions that lead to the discovery of evidence are admissible.
- Section 28: Confessions made by an accused in police custody are not admissible.
- Section 29: Confessions by co-accused are not admissible unless they implicate themselves as well as others.
- Section 30: A confession made by one co-accused can be used against other co-accused if it is corroborated.
Examples:
- Section 27: A confession about the location of a weapon leading to its recovery.
- Section 30: A confession by A implicating B in a crime, provided B’s involvement is corroborated.
Admitted Facts Need Not Be Proved (Section 58)
- Section 58:
- Definition: Facts that are admitted by the parties do not need to be proved.
- Purpose: To streamline the legal process by eliminating the need to prove facts that are already agreed upon.
Examples:
- Admitted Facts: Agreement on the date of a contract’s execution.
- Proof Not Required: Parties do not need to provide evidence of the contract’s date if it is admitted.
Dying Declaration
- Definition: A statement made by a person who believes they are about to die, concerning the cause of their death or the circumstances of their death.
- Relevance: Admissible under Section 32(1) if made in the expectation of imminent death.
Justification for Relevance:
- Necessity: The statement is considered reliable due to the person’s belief in their imminent death and their focus on the truth.
- Context: Must relate directly to the cause of death or circumstances surrounding it.
Examples:
- Admissible Dying Declaration: A statement by a victim of poisoning about who poisoned them, made just before death.
- Inadmissible: Statements about unrelated matters made by someone on their deathbed.
Judicial Standards for Appreciation of Evidentiary Value – Section 32(1) with Reference to English Law
- Section 32(1): Dying declarations are relevant and admissible if the declarant believed they were dying and the statement pertains to the cause or circumstances of their death.
- English Law: Similar principles apply, where dying declarations are considered a reliable source of evidence due to the declarant’s perceived proximity to death.
Examples:
- Indian Law: Statements under Section 32(1) are given weight in court if corroborated.
- English Law: Dying declarations are used in criminal cases if they meet the criteria of reliability.
Other Statements by Persons Who Cannot Be Called as Witnesses (Sections 32 (2) to (8), 33)
- Sections 32 (2) to (8):
- Section 32(2): Statements related to the cause of death made by a person who cannot be called as a witness.
- Section 33: Statements made in the course of business or professional duty by persons who cannot be called.
Examples:
- Section 32(2): Statements about events leading to death by a person who later dies and cannot testify.
- Section 33: Business records made by an individual who cannot testify but are admissible as evidence.
Statement Under Special Circumstances (Sections 34 to 39)
- Sections 34 to 39:
- Section 34: Statements made by persons who are dead or cannot be called as witnesses but pertain to the facts in issue.
- Section 35: Statements made by a person who has since been convicted of a crime.
- Section 36: Statements in documents prepared in the ordinary course of business.
- Section 37: Statements made in the regular course of professional duty.
- Section 38: Statements relating to public rights or customs.
- Section 39: Statements made in legal proceedings or investigations.
Examples:
- Section 34: Statements in a will by a deceased person about property distribution.
- Section 37: Medical records prepared by a physician as part of their professional duty.
Relevance of Judgments
- Definition: Judgments from previous cases can be relevant in certain circumstances but are generally not admissible to prove the facts in the current case.
- Types:
- Judgments as Evidence: Relevant for establishing judicial precedents or for proving the authenticity of documents.
Examples:
- Relevant Judgments: A judgment used to show a pattern or precedent relevant to the current case.
General Principles – Fraud and Collusion (Sections 40 to 44)
- Sections 40 to 44:
- Section 40: Facts that support the allegation of fraud.
- Section 41: Facts proving collusion between parties.
- Section 42: Relevance of facts related to the motive of parties.
- Section 43: Facts related to the conspiracy or deceitful practice.
- Section 44: Facts showing conduct of parties that is fraudulent or collusive.
Examples:
- Section 40: Evidence of fraudulent activity in financial statements.
- Section 41: Evidence showing parties have worked together to defraud others.
Expert Testimony: General Principles (Sections 45 – 50)
- Sections 45 to 50:
- Section 45: An expert can give their opinion on matters requiring special knowledge.
- Section 46: Evidence of opinions based on facts known to the expert.
- Section 47: Opinions based on personal knowledge of the expert.
- Section 48: Expert testimony on handwriting or documents.
- Section 49: Expert testimony on foreign law.
- Section 50: Procedures for qualifying as an expert.
Examples:
- Section 45: A forensic scientist providing expert testimony on DNA evidence.
- Section 48: A handwriting expert analyzing signatures on a disputed document.
Who is an Expert
- Definition: An expert is someone with specialized knowledge or experience in a particular field that is beyond the average understanding of a layperson.
- Qualifications: Must have expertise, qualifications, and experience relevant to the matter at hand.
Examples:
- Medical Expert: A doctor providing testimony on medical issues.
- Technical Expert: An engineer providing insight into technical aspects of a case.
Types of Expert Evidence
- Categories:
- Scientific Evidence: Testimony based on scientific analysis and methods.
- Technical Evidence: Testimony on technical issues requiring specialized knowledge.
- Professional Evidence: Testimony based on professional experience and expertise.
Examples:
- Scientific Evidence: Analysis of forensic evidence such as blood samples.
- Technical Evidence: Expert analysis of engineering failures or mechanical issues.
Problems of Judicial Defense to Expert Testimony
- Issues:
- Reliability: Concerns about the accuracy and reliability of expert opinions.
- Bias: Potential for bias or conflict of interest in expert testimony.
- Complexity: Challenges in understanding complex scientific or technical evidence.
Examples:
- Reliability Issues: Questioning the methods used by an expert to reach their conclusions.
- Bias: Concerns that an expert may have a vested interest in the outcome of the case
